Case Law Details
Devarajulu Natarajan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
Ld. CIT(A), noted that post demonetization, cash deposited in State Bank of Hyderabad was only Rs.2.50 Lacs and cash deposited in Canara bank was Rs.6 Lacs only. Accordingly, the addition was restricted to Rs.8.50 Lacs. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
The Ld. AR pleaded for another opportunity before lower authorities to substantiate the source of cash deposit. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee could not establish the source of deposit and therefore, the additions are justified. Having considered factual matrix, I am of the opinion that the onus is on assessee to substantiate the source of cash deposit of Rs.8.50 Lacs. Considering the pleadings made by Ld. AR, I deem it fit to grant another opportunity to assessee to substantiate its case before Ld. AO. Accordingly, the issue is restored back to the file of Ld. AO with a direction to assessee to substantiate the source of deposit.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 21.03.2022 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 30.09.2019. The grievance of the assessee is confirmation of certain addition of Rs.8.50 Lacs which represent cash deposit in Bank Accounts. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under.
2. The assessee admitted income of Rs.6.82 Lacs which include salary income and the case was subjected to scrutiny to verify cash deposited by assessee during demonetization period. The cash deposit during demonetized period was Rs.8.50 Lacs. The assessee stated to have sourced it from amount returned by friends and relatives out of money given to them during past several years out of salary income. However, these details could not be filed by the assessee. The salary was directly credited though banking channels. Accordingly, Ld. AO added entire cash deposit of Rs.12.85 Lacs u/s 69 which include deposit made before demonetization period also.
3. The Ld. CIT(A), noted that post demonetization, cash deposited in State Bank of Hyderabad was only Rs.2.50 Lacs and cash deposited in Canara bank was Rs.6 Lacs only. Accordingly, the addition was restricted to Rs.8.50 Lacs. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
4. The Ld. AR pleaded for another opportunity before lower authorities to substantiate the source of cash deposit. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee could not establish the source of deposit and therefore, the additions are justified. Having considered factual matrix, I am of the opinion that the onus is on assessee to substantiate the source of cash deposit of Rs.8.50 Lacs. Considering the pleadings made by Ld. AR, I deem it fit to grant another opportunity to assessee to substantiate its case before Ld. AO. Accordingly, the issue is restored back to the file of Ld. AO with a direction to assessee to substantiate the source of deposit.
5. The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 15th September, 2022.
